Therefore, from the above discussions, the
following conclusions are emerged :
(i) An application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not
barred in a case in which an offence under the
provisions of Act, 2019 is alleged. But, if an
accused wants to avail the right under Section 438
Cr.P.C., he should specifically plead in an
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. about the
reasons for not approaching the Magistrate under
Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019.
(ii) If an accused in a case registered under the
provisions of the Act, 2019 filed a Bail Application
before the Magistrate under Section 7(c), his
personal presence before the Magistrate is not
necessary till final orders are passed in the Bail
Application. The personal presence of the victim is
also not needed. The accused can file the Bail
Application through a lawyer if he intends to do so.
The victim also can contest the bail application
through a lawyer if she decides so.
(iii) If a Bail Application is filed under Section 7(c) of the
Act, 2019, the Magistrate should hear the married
Muslim woman upon whom talaq is pronounced.
(iv) The order passed in a Bail Application filed under
Section 7(c) should be a speaking order.
(v) If a Bail Application filed by an accused under
section 7(c) of the Act, 2019 is allowed, the
Magistrate can direct the accused to appear before
the court within a short period to comply the bail
conditions including the execution of bond, etc.
(vi) If a Bail Application is dismissed by the learned
Magistrate under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the
Investigating Officer can take up follow up action
and arrest the accused, if necessary.
(vii) If a Bail Application is dismissed by the learned
Magistrate under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the
accused can challenge that order, if he intends to do
so, in accordance with law. At that stage, the
accused can even file an application under Section
438 Cr.P.C., if there is an apprehension of arrest.
(viii) If an application under Section 7(c) is allowed, the
married Muslim woman upon whom a talaq is
pronounced can challenge that order in accordance
with law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Bail Appl..No.9163 OF 2019
NAHAS Vs THE STATE OF KERALA,
Dated this the 3rd day of August 2020
The above Bail Application is filed by the accused in
Crime No.1303 of 2019 of Fort Kochi Police Station under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). This
case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence
punishable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection
of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (For short, the Act, 2019).
2. The prosecution case is that the defacto
complainant married the petitioner on 3.5.2015 as per religious
rituals, and they were living as husband and wife.
Subsequently, the petitioner with an intention to end the marital
relationship with the defacto complainant sent a registered
letter on 4.11.2019, pronouncing triple talaq to the
complainant. Hence it is alleged that the petitioner committed
the offence under Section 4 of the Act, 2019.
3. When this Bail Application came up for
consideration, through Video Conference, this court informed
the counsel for the petitioner that, when there is a specific
provision regarding grant of bail in the Act 2019, it is always
better for the petitioner to approach the Magistrate Court
concerned under Section 7 (c) of the Act, 2019 before filing an
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. But, the counsel
submitted that if the petitioner files a Bail Application before the
Magistrate Court under Section 7(c), there is every chance to
remand the petitioner by the learned Magistrate because the
learned Magistrate can consider the Bail Application only after
issuing notice to the defacto complainant. Therefore, the
counsel submitted that the petitioner would be in remand till
Bail Application is considered by the learned Magistrate under
Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019. The counsel also submitted that
it would be an injustice to the petitioner, if he is remanded by
the learned Magistrate before considering the Bail Application
on merit under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019. Therefore, the
counsel submitted that an application under Section 438
Cr.P.C. is the only remedy to the petitioner.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioner could approach the Magistrate under Section 7(c) of
the Act, 2019, and this court need not exercise the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
5. Therefore, the question to be decided is whether an
accused involved in an offence under the Act, 2019 can file a
petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. without filing a Bail
Application under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019 before the
Magistrate court concerned.
6. The Act, 2019 received the assent of the President
of India on 31.7.2019. The statement of objects and reasons
of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill,
2019 is relevant while considering the provisions in the Act,
2019. The statement of objects and reasons of the Bill is
extracted hereunder :
“The Supreme Court in the matter of Shayara
Bano Vs. Union of India and others and other connected
matters, on the 22nd August, 2017, in a majority judgment
of 3:2, set aside the practice of talaq-e-biddat (three
pronouncements of talaq, at one and the same time)
practiced by certain Muslim husbands to divorce their
wives. This judgment gave a boost to liberate Indian
Muslim women from the age-old practice of capricious
and whimsical method of divorce, by some Muslim men,
leaving no room for reconciliation.
2. The petitioner in the above said case
challenged, inter alia, talaq-e-biddat on the ground that
the said practice is discriminatory and against dignity of
women. The judgment vindicated the position taken by
the Government that talaq-e-biddat is against
constitutional morality, dignity of women and the
principles of gender equality, as also against gender
equity guaranteed under the Constitution. The All India
Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), which was the 7th
respondent in the above case, in their affidavit, inter alia,
contended that it was not for the judiciary to decide
matters of religious practices such as talaq-e-biddat, but
for the legislature to make any law on the same. They
had also submitted in the Supreme Court that they would
issue advisories to the members of the community
against this practice.
3. In spite of the Supreme Court setting aside
talaq-e-biddat, and the assurance of AIMPLB, there have
been reports of divorce by way of talaq-e-biddat from
different parts of the country. It is seen that setting aside
talaq-e-biddat by the Supreme Court has not worked as
any deterrent in bringing down the number of divorces by
this practice among certain Muslims. It is, therefore, felt
that there is a need for State action to give effect to the
order of the Supreme Court and to redress the
grievances of victims of illegal divorce. Therefore, to
protect the rights of married Muslim women who are
being divorced by triple talaq, a Bill, namely, the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017,
was introduced in, and passed by, the Lok Sabha on the
28th December, 2017 and was pending in Rajya Sabha.
4. The aforesaid Bill proposed to declare the
practice of triple talaq as void and illegal and made it an
offence punishable with imprisonment upto three years
and fine, and triable by a Judicial Magistrate of the first
class. It was also proposed to provide subsistence
allowance to married Muslim women and dependent
children and also for the custody of minor children. The
Bill further provided to make the offence cognizable and
non-bailable. However, apprehensions have been raised
in and outside Parliament regarding the provisions of the
pending Bill which enables any person to give
information to an officer in charge of a police station to
take cognizance of the offence and making the offence
non-bailable.
5. In order to address the above concerns, it
has been decided to make the offence cognizable, if the
information relating to the commission of an offence is
given to an officer in charge of a police station by the
married Muslim women upon whom talaq is pronounced
or any person related to her by blood or marriage. It was
also decided to make the offence non-bailable and
compoundable at the instance of the married Muslim
women with the permission of the Magistrate, on such
terms and conditions as he may determine.
6. As the Bill was pending for consideration in
Rajya Sabha and the practice of divorce by triple talaq
(i.e., talaq-e-biddat) was continuing, there was an urgent
need to take immediate action to prevent such practice
by making stringent provisions in the law. Since both
Houses of Parliament were not in session and
circumstances existed which render it necessary for the
President to take immediate action in the matter, the
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage)
Ordinance, 2018 (Ord.7 of 2018), with aforesaid changes
was promulgated on the 19th September, 2018.
7. In order to replace the said Ordinance, the
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill,
2018 was introduced in Lok Sabha on the 17th December,
2018 and was passed by that House on the 27th
December, 2018. However, the Bill could not be taken up
for consideration in Rajya Sabha and both Houses were
adjourned. As both Houses of Parliament were not in
session and the practice of divorce by triple talaq (i.e.
talaq-e-biddat) was continuing, to give continued effect
to the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance, the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance,
2019 (Ord.1 of 2019) was promulgated on the 12th
January, 2019.
8. Subsequently, to replace the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance,
2019, necessary official amendments to the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2018
were moved in Rajya Sabha. However, the Bill could not
be taken up for consideration in Rajya Sabha and both
Houses were adjourned. Since both Houses of
Parliament were not in session, to give continued effect
to the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance, the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Second
Ordinance, 2019 (Ord.4 of 2019) was promulgated on the
21st February, 2019. Thereafter, the Sixteenth Lok Sabha
was dissolved on the 25th May, 2019 and the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017 and
the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage)
Bill, 2018 pending in Rajya Sabha lapsed.
9. Accordingly, to replace the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Second Ordinance,
2019, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Marriage) Bill, 209 is being introduced in Parliament.
10. The legislation would help in ensuring the
larger Constitutional goals of gender justice and gender
equality of married Muslim women and help subserve
their fundamental rights of non-discrimination and
empowerment.
11. The Bill seeks to replace the aforesaid
Ordinance.”
Therefore, while interpreting any provisions of the Act, 2019,
the intention of the Parliament to enact the Act should be there
in mind.
7. The Parliament passed the above bill with the
salutary object of ensuring the larger constitutional goals of
gender justice and gender equality of married Muslim women
and help subserve their fundamental rights of nondiscrimination
and empowerment. The provisions in the Act,
2019 are to be read along with the statement of objects and
reasons. In the statement of objects and reasons, it is stated
that it was decided to make the offence non bailable and
compoundable at the instance of the Married Muslim Women
with the permission of the Magistrate. The offence is now
cognizable and non bailable.
8. There are only eight Sections in the Act, 2019.
Section 1 of the Act, 2019 deals about the short title, extent
and commencement. Section 2 of the Act is the definition
clause. Chapter I of Act, 2019 consists of Section 1 and
Section 2. Section 2(c) of the Act, 2019 defines talaq. Section
2(c) of the Act, 2019 is extracted hereunder :
“(c) “talaq” means talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of
talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable
divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband.”
9. Chapter II deals about the declaration of talaq to be
void and illegal. Section 4 of the Act, 2019 says that any
Muslim husband, who pronounces talaq referred to in Section
3, upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable
to fine. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2019 are extracted
hereunder :
“3. Any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband
upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic
form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and
illegal.
4. Any Muslim husband who pronounces talaq
referred to in Section 3 upon his wife shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and
shall also be liable to fine.”
10. Chapter III of the Act, 2019 deals about the
Protection of Rights of Married Muslim Women. In Chapter III,
Section 7 is included. Section 7(c) says about the disposal of
Bail Application filed by an accused charged with an offence
under the Act, 2019. Section 7 of the Act, 2019 is extracted
hereunder :
“7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, -
(a) an offence punishable under this Act shall
be cognizable, if information relating to the commission of
the offence is given to an officer in charge of a police
station by the married Muslim woman upon whom talaq is
pronounced or any person related to her by blood or
marriage ;
(b) an offence punishable under this Act shall
be compoundable, at the instance of the married Muslim
woman upon whom talaq is pronounced with the
permission of the Magistrate, on such terms and
conditions as he may determine;
(c) no person accused of an offence
punishable under this Act shall be released on bail unless
the Magistrate, on an application filed by the accused and
after hearing the married Muslim woman upon whom
talaq is pronounced, is satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for granting bail to such person.”
11. Consideration of bail is dealt with in Section 7(c) of
the Act, 2019. Section 7 starts with a notwithstanding clause.
As per Section 7(c) notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an
offence punishable under the Act, 2019 shall be released on
bail unless the Magistrate, on an application filed by the
accused and after hearing the married Muslim woman upon
whom talaq is pronounced, is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for granting bail to such person. So, on a
reading of Section 7(c), it is clear that a separate procedure is
contemplated for the disposal of Bail Applications of the
accused against whom offence under the Act, 2019 is alleged.
A hearing of the married Muslim woman upon whom talaq is
pronounced is mandatory while considering an application for
bail by an accused. Moreover, a speaking order is necessary
from the Magistrate, while granting bail to a person accused of
an offence, under the Act, 2019.
12. When there are specific provision and specific
procedure contemplated for consideration of bail by the
Magistrate Court under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, whether
an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be entertained is
the question in this case. There is indeed no prohibition of the
applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the Act, 2019. Section
18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 clearly says that nothing in Section 438 of
the Cr.P.C. shall apply in relation to any case involving the
arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an
offence under that Act. But, there is no such prohibitory
Section in the Act, 2019 restraining the court in entertaining an
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it cannot be
said that there is a total bar to entertain an application under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. if an offence under the Act, 2019 is alleged
against an accused.
13. But, the next question is whether the discretionary
jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be entertained in
each and every case in which offence under the Act, 2019 is
alleged. In its wisdom, the Parliament contemplated a
separate procedure for consideration of Bail Application of an
accused involved in an offence under the Act, 2019. As per
Section 7 (c) of the Act, 2019, the Magistrate is empowered to
consider an application under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019
after hearing the Muslim woman upon whom talaq is
pronounced. When there is such a specific provision
mentioned in the Act, 2019, normally an application under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. need not be entertained. I make it clear
that there is no total prohibition in entertaining an application
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. But when a specific Section is
provided in the Act, 2019 for consideration of a Bail Application
by the Magistrate Court, an accused should avail such a right
before exercising his right under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It will be
beneficial to the victims in the Act, 2019, because all of them
may not be able to appear before the District Centre where
the Sessions Court situated or before the High Court because
of their financial situation also. It will be easy for them to
approach their jurisdictional Magistrate Court instead of
Sessions Court or High Court. But, of course there may be an
extraordinary situation in which remedy of an accused will be
only under Section 438 Cr.P.C. But, in such cases, an accused
should explain in his application filed under Section 438
Cr.P.C. about the reason for not approaching the learned
Magistrate under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019.
14. The apprehension raised by the counsel for the
petitioner, in this case, is that if the accused appeared before
the Magistrate court and files an application under Section 7(c)
of the Act, 2019, the learned Magistrate can consider the Bail
Application only after issuing notice to the accused. The
offence under Section 4 of the Act, 2019 is a non bailable
offence. In such situation, once the accused surrenders before
the learned Magistrate, he will be remanded by the learned
Magistrate and till his Bail Application is considered on merit,
he will be in remand. Such a possibility also cannot be ruled
out. Then what is the remedy is the question. Before
considering an application for bail on merit in accordance to
Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, if the accused is remanded, that
will be definitely an infringement of his personal liberty. That
amounts to confinement without hearing his case on merit.
15. In my opinion, for filing a Bail Application under
Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the presence of the accused is
not mandatory. An accused can file an application for bail
under Section 7(c) through a lawyer. I am aware of the
mandate of Section 437 Cr.P.C., which says that the learned
Magistrate can consider a Bail Application only on certain
situations. Section 437 (1) Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder :
“437. When bail may be taken in case of nonbailable
offence
(1) When any person accused of, or suspected
of, the commission of any non bailable offence is
arrested or detained without warrant by an officer-incharge
of a police station or appears or is brought before
a court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he
may be released on bail, but - ....”
16. On a reading of Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., it is clear
that the Magistrate can consider a Bail Application only ;
(a) when any person accused of, or suspected of, the
commission of any non bailable offence is arrested or
detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a
police station
or
(b) appears before the Magistrate
or
(c) is brought before a court other than High Court or
Sessions Court.
These three pre-conditions are necessary for considering a
Bail Application by a Magistrate under Section 437 (1) Cr.P.C.
So, it is clear that a Magistrate can entertain an application
under Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. only if the accused is arrested or
detained without warrant by an officer in charge of the police
station or the accused appears before the court or the accused
is brought before a court. But, Section 7 of the Act, 2019 starts
with a notwithstanding clause. Section 7 starts with a
sentence “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973”. What is the meaning of usage
'notwithstanding' in a statute is explained by this Court and the
Apex Court in several decisions.
17. In Pannalal Bansilal Patil and others v. State of
A.P. and another [AIR (1996) Supreme Court 1023], the
Supreme Court observed like this :
“22. Section 16 with a non obstante clause
abolishes the hereditary right in trusteeship of a
charitable and Hindu religious institution or endowment.
It is settled law that the legislature within its competence
may amend the law. The language in Section 16 seeks
to alter the pre-existing operation of the law. The
alteration in language may be the result of many factors.
It is settled legislative device to employ non obstante
clause to suitably alter the pre-existing law consistent
with the legislative policy under the new Act to provide the
remedy for the mischief the legislature felt most acute.
Section 16 therefore, applying non obstante clause,
altered the operation of any compromise, agreement
entered into or a scheme framed or a judgment, decree
or order passed by any Court, tribunal or other authority
or any deed or other document prior to the Act. The preexisting
hereditary right in trusteeship in the Officer of the
hereditary trustee, mutawalli, dharmakartha or muntazim
or by whatever name it is called and abolished the same
prospectively from the date of the commencement of the
Act. Article 15(1) of the Constitution prohibits
discrimination against any citizen on grounds only of
religion, race caste sex place of birth or any of them.”
[Emphasis supplied]
18. In A.G.Varadarajulu and another v. State of T.N.
and others [(1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 231], the
Supreme Court observed like this :
“16. It is well settled that while dealing with a non
obstante clause under which the legislature wants to give
overriding effect to a section, the court must try to find
out the extent to which the legislature had intended to
give one provision orverriding effect over another
provision. Such intention of the legislature in this behalf
is to be gathered from the enacting part of the section. In
Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose AIR 1952 SC 369
: 1953 SCR 1 Patanjali Sastri, J. observed :
“The enacting part of a statute must, where it
is clear, be taken to control the non obstante clause
where both cannot be read harmoniously;”
In Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1971) 1
SCC 85 (SCC at p.139) Hidayatullah, C.J. observed that
the non obstante clause is no doubt a very potent clause
intended to exclude every consideration arising from
other provisions of the same statute or other statute but
“for that reason alone we must determine the scope” of
that provision strictly. When the section containing the
said clause does not refer to any particular provisions
which it intends to override but refers to the provisions of
the statute generally, it is not permissible to hold that it
excludes the whole Act and stands all alone by itself. “A
search has, therefore, to be made with a view to
determining which provision answers the description and
which does not.” ”
19. From the above decisions, it is clear that by
inserting a non-obstante clause in an Act, the intention of the
legislature is to give overriding effect over another provision.
Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. deals with the powers of the Magistrate
to consider a Bail Application. Similarly, notwithstanding
anything contained in Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., a separate
procedure is contemplated in Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019 for
consideration of Bail Application by the Magistrate. But, it is to
be noted that the three pre-conditions to consider a Bail
Application under Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. is not there in Section
7(c) of the Act, 2019.
20. In Section 7(c), it is only stated that 'on an
application filed by the accused'. The appearance of the
accused before the court is not insisted as per Section 7(c) of
the Act, 2019. Similarly arrest and detention of the accused
without warrant by the police is not contemplated in Section
7(c) of the Act, 2019 for consideration of the Bail Application.
Similarly arrest and production of the accused before the
Magistrate are also not contemplated in Section 7(c) of the Act,
2019. As far as consideration of Bail Application under the Act,
2019 is concerned, Section 7(c) is a complete code. There is
no insistence for the appearance of the accused for the
consideration of a Bail Application in Section 7(c). Therefore,
an accused charged under the provisions of the Act, 2019 can
very well file an application before the Magistrate Court
concerned through a lawyer. If an application is filed through a
lawyer under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the Magistrate
should issue notice to the married Muslim woman upon whom
talaq is pronounced. Married woman can also appear through
a counsel, if she wanted to appear like that. Thereafter, the
learned Magistrate has to hear both parties and pass an order
on merit either rejecting the Bail Application or granting the Bail
Application. On both situations, the presence of the accused
is not contemplated in Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019. If the Bail
Application is allowed, the learned Magistrate can impose a
condition that the accused should appear before the court
personally to execute the bond and to comply other conditions
of bail, if any. If the Bail Application is dismissed, the accused
can work out his remedy. He can either challenge the order
dismissing the Bail Application itself in accordance with law or
the accused can file an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
apprehending arrest on an accusation of having committed a
non bailable offence. The personal presence of the accused
before the Magistrate for considering a Bail Application or at
the time when the final order is passed under Section 7(c) is
not mandatory. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner
herein that if he appeared before the Magistrate Court under
Section 7(c), he would be remanded is out of question. If the
Magistrate is dismissing or allowing a Bail Application, the
Magistrate should specifically mention the reason for the same
in the light of the specific provision in Section 7(c). In other
words, the order dismissing or allowing a Bail Application
should be a speaking order, so that if any of the party wants to
challenge the order, the superior court will be in a better
position to understand the case. Once the Bail Application is
dismissed, the Investigating Officer can arrest the accused, if
necessary. Therefore, from the above discussions, the
following conclusions are emerged :
(i) An application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not
barred in a case in which an offence under the
provisions of Act, 2019 is alleged. But, if an
accused wants to avail the right under Section 438
Cr.P.C., he should specifically plead in an
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. about the
reasons for not approaching the Magistrate under
Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019.
(ii) If an accused in a case registered under the
provisions of the Act, 2019 filed a Bail Application
before the Magistrate under Section 7(c), his
personal presence before the Magistrate is not
necessary till final orders are passed in the Bail
Application. The personal presence of the victim is
also not needed. The accused can file the Bail
Application through a lawyer if he intends to do so.
The victim also can contest the bail application
through a lawyer if she decides so.
(iii) If a Bail Application is filed under Section 7(c) of the
Act, 2019, the Magistrate should hear the married
Muslim woman upon whom talaq is pronounced.
(iv) The order passed in a Bail Application filed under
Section 7(c) should be a speaking order.
(v) If a Bail Application filed by an accused under
section 7(c) of the Act, 2019 is allowed, the
Magistrate can direct the accused to appear before
the court within a short period to comply the bail
conditions including the execution of bond, etc.
(vi) If a Bail Application is dismissed by the learned
Magistrate under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the
Investigating Officer can take up follow up action
and arrest the accused, if necessary.
(vii) If a Bail Application is dismissed by the learned
Magistrate under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the
accused can challenge that order, if he intends to do
so, in accordance with law. At that stage, the
accused can even file an application under Section
438 Cr.P.C., if there is an apprehension of arrest.
(viii) If an application under Section 7(c) is allowed, the
married Muslim woman upon whom a talaq is
pronounced can challenge that order in accordance
with law.
21. In the light of the above conclusions, the petitioner
in this Bail Application can approach the learned Magistrate
under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019 with a Bail Application.
Therefore, this Bail Application is disposed of with the
above observations.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment